Are there any theorists who make make decent arguments against Darwinism? I don't me le earth is 6000 years old meme, I mean people like Lev Berg
I would ask this on /sci/ but when I do they just post hentai and stuff in response. So I'm asking you guys.
>>588195
Darwinism or the modern theory of evolution?
>>588204
The theory that survival of the fittest and natural selection are the main governors of evolution.
>>588195
Not really, evolutionary theory has changed an enormous amount but his central idea of evolution by natural selection was spot on (it's not the only cause for evolution, but it is the main one).
There are certain things Darwin himself didn't know about, genes being the most important, which turn out to be incredibly complicated and aren't just the inheritence of distinct traits.
All alternative theories for evolution have been proven wrong, the most famous being the Lamarckian model. So no, I can't think of any arguments against it that gained traction in the field of biology.
>>588210
I'd never heard of Lev Berg, but his ideas seem interesting. Especially with this comment "J B S Haldane called Nomogenesis "by far the best anti-Darwinian book of this century"."
I'm not aware of major arguments against the predominance of natural selection, obviously with multiple other influences such as sexual selection, and 'luck' (K/T extinction). And the Spandrels idea rather than adaptive explanation for some features.
>>588222
Noice.
Kropotkin Reckt Darwin
>Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
>>588232
Sounds a bit like something that would be covered by evolutionary stable strategies and kin selection related ideas.
>>588210
Also, as you would probably know 'survival of the fittest' is a fairly misleading way to express the idea.
>>588262
This. They should rename it something like "extinction of the shittiest" actually.
>>588267
Yea, also the fact that fitness actually has a very technical biological definition in regards to evolution, and most people will misinterpret it or aren't even aware of it.
>>588210
The term 'survival of the fittest' wasn't used by Darwin, it was Herbert Spencer.
>>588222
>(it's not the only cause for evolution, but it is the main one).
the cause of evolution is random mutation. humans calls random mutations random because they have no idea where they come from.
>>588933
The genetic differences that are are acted upon by evolution arise from 'random' mutation, but evolutionary processes aren't random.
>>588933
>no idea where they come from.
Point mutations, insertions, deletions, amplifications, chromosomal translocations, loss of heterozygosity. there is alot we know about how mutations occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Classification_of_mutation_types
I think you meant, the likelihood of a particular region of the genome being more susceptible to mutation than another?
>>588958
Well satellite DNA is more prone to mutation than others because the frequent sequence repeats can result in slippage during replication.
>>589114
I'm not too good on the specifics of mutations and genetics, more the evolutionary theory, but I do remember reading that certain genes coding for vital proteins have a decreased frequency of mutation, which makes sense in an adaptive sense.
>>588195
Against Darwinism no, but Lamarckianism is actually more valid than we previously thought.
>>589135
Isn't it largely restricted to bacteria? or are you meaning solely in terms of 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' and epigenetics?
>>589121
Well satellite DNA is just repeated DNA sequences and the main difference between humans is repeat quantity because the replication protein can slip and fuck it up.
I can't really imagine how vital DNA can have a lower mutation rate other than redundancy or DNA regulation though.
Maybe it is just easy to match those homologous areas between chromosomes so homologous recombination is easier.
>>589144
>largely restricted to bacteria
I'm curious; why would an evolutionary theory be limited to one specific domain of life? I thought that Lamarckian evolution was largely discredited. Full disclosure I haven't taken much evolutionary science beyond the general literature, but I don't see why such a functional structure like evolution would be restricted to Bacteria.
>>589182
Some bacteria can transfer genes horizontally, as opposed to vertical (parent to offspring). not sure if this really counts as lamarckism though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
>>589191
>Horizontal gene transfer is the primary reason for bacterial antibiotic resistance,[1][2][3][4][5] and plays an important role in the evolution of bacteria that can degrade novel compounds such as human-created pesticides
Fuck
>>589191
I don't think it counts.
The F plasmid and its recombination product with the bacterial chromosome is not influenced by effort or striving.
It is still random, as is absorbing DNA from the environment and from viruses.
It's horizontal gene transfer and it means some bacteria species have significant amounts of DNA from other species but I don't think it proves the lamarck model for bacteria.
>>588195
Have you seen any Kent Hovind lectures on this?
For me it clicked when he pointed out that Darwinism was Hitler's religion. If Hitler worshipped Darwinism that, in itself, proves Darwinism wrong.
>>589236
haha, ebig false flag meme
dank af
>>589236
That's not proof of anything since association with an individual does not prove something wrong and Hitler believed in a misinterpreted version of survival of the fittest so it has even less to do with the modern idea of evolution.
>Kent Hovind
>>589221
I'd agree, the only reason I thought it was reminiscent of lamarkism is that the genes were acquired and inherited by the next generation, but in the end bacteria wasn't the focus of lamarks theory and it would be better to describe it how it is rather than in the context of an outdated theory.
>>589236
Hitter was a Christian.
He talked about Christianity in his speeches.
>>589236
Is Kentposting a new /his/ meme?
Apply Darwinism to sharks.
Apply Darwinism to eyes.
Darwinism BTFO!
>>589923
Wot
>>589930
Darwinism struggles to explain why sharks haven't evolved or why eyes exist.
It's just Anglo-American dogma at this point. Whenever someone points out holes in Darwinian theory, Anglos flip their shit and start calling you a dumbass and a idiot.
>>589182
I know understanding the roles of hormones in inter-utero development has created a sort of neo-lamarkianism in some areas.
For example, it's now understood that the children of famine victims will be more likely to suffer from obesity.
>>589947
>Anglo-American
Literally everyone BUT Americans and radical muslims accept the Theory of Evolution as a fact.
>>589947
Why are the trolls active currently?
Sharks have experienced evolutionary selection pressure as long as they have been around.
And eyes developed multiple times independently.
>>588232
Survival of the fittest buzzword is the worst thing that happened to biology.
Fittest may mean the strongest just as well as the best teamworker.
The most efficient African predator isn't Lion or any big cat, nor hyena but relatively small canine which name I forgot but you get the point. They are weak but they hunt in packs and exhaust their prey so they can kill it without problems even if it's much bigger.
Are they the smartest? Likely not.
Are they the strongest? Obviously not.
Are they the fastest? Nope.
>>589965
That still isn't what fittest means, but it is a buzzword, and your talking about African wild dogs btw, best ratio of successful hunts.
>Sharks have experienced evolutionary selection pressure as long as they have been around.
This. Some genera are just more durable than others. It really is that simple.
Also, I have a question, why is it that the sea contains so many ancient forms of life? Is the competition or struggle for different species a bit more relaxed in the aquatic?
>>589959
>>589959
>Sharks have experienced evolutionary selection pressure as long as they have been around.
>And eyes developed multiple times independently.
Weak response that ignores the problems raised. The equivalent of "yeah, but you're wrong!"
>>589952
It's uniquely Anglo. All they do is use media to be like "THESE PEOPLE DON'T BELIEVE THIS THING IN EVER-CHANGING SCIENCE."
The very same dumb Anglos will shout all day about how God doesn't exist, and yet, all day, they think about God.
>>589980
> This. Some genera are just more durable than others. It really is that simple.
Like, I'm pretty sure, like, sharks did, like evolve! It really is, like, that simple!
>>589986
Nah, you're just retarded.
>>589980
Can't answer this definitively but perhaps the fact that the ocean has had a disproportionately greater loss of species for most mass extinction events means that the species which managed to survive these have been subjected to several massive selection events, and only the most 'durable/resilient' species survived.
Evolution is quite easy to disprove.
If you take a bowl of porridge and leave it in a cupboard for a year has it turned into a mongoose?
No, well evolution clearly doesn't happen then.
>>589988
Once you've achieved a perfect form, there's very little need for change.
>>589986
There is no problem with the face that sharks have had a stable morphology for a long period of time. if there is, define it.
Explain the problem you see with the evolution of eyes.
>>589998
I think you just disproved God.
>>590005
I just don't see why anyone would wait 15 billion years to see anything.
>>589438
>that are most fit.
I think that it is wiser to say that the mutations who are suppressed down the lineage are the ones who are not in favor or reproduction.
the survival of the fittest becomes the destruction of the least able to reproduce.
>>590253
That anon is using fit in the correct technical way,
And destruction of the least able to reproduce is less descriptive than using 'fit' properly.
>>588195
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
